Talk:Simon Dach

Untitled

Can Molobo or Space Cadet explain this? I see no other discussion made than that of those reverting Space Cadet and Molobo. Sciurinæ 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's to explain, Nightbeast? Gdansk vote. Period. Space Cadet 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Space Cadet, you have now by my count reverted this article 4 times. You have been asked to bring your views to talk: do so. Revert again and you will be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter with you people, I already explained on Talk that my changes are the result of the Gdańsk vote! Block this! Space Cadet 00:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Explain here, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I already did! Twice! Are you blind? Space Cadet 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My visual acuity has nothing to do with it. If you wish to make a substantial change to an article, the reasons and discussion need to go here, so they are in article history. Make your case here, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, I was asked to come here as well. All I have done is reverse Space Cadet's unexplained changes to an existing article. Please do not add another person to the revert war; rather, exaplain why you support these changes here, on the talk page, with cites. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You can count on me on removing the new polish wikipedians' absurdity. Voyevoda 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm commenting here in response to a request for comment. It seems to me that Space Cadet is being forceful and uncooperative. I support reverting his changes. Maxwahrhaftig 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I agree with using the period name Königsberg in the article and the modern name in parentheses. I wish the rest of the article were receiving as much editorial attention as this minor detail. Durova 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now for those who are blind: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises." Also, for executing the Gdańsk vote there is no 3 RR. Get it? Space Cadet 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No I must say I don't. Königsberg never shared history with Poland! Schwartz und Weiss 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your history book! From 1466 to 1660 your precious Königsberg was a part of Polish fief. Space Cadet 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Königsberg obviously shares history with Poland (Królewiec), and so the Polish names should be mentioned here. Still, as the person on question seems to have been a German language author, I'd say that if some people want to use German first, why not? Dach might have been a vassal subject of the PLC, but in terms of culture he was much closer to Germany (or rather, Holy Roman Empire at that time) then Poland. Note also that he doesn't have an article on Polish wiki, and the only article he is refferenced in is Literatura niemiecka. I hope you all will stop this revert war now and go write some constructive things.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Space Cadet 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ACHTUNG ALLE: I have added the Wiki-link to Königsberg, this redirects to Kalingrad, which mentions the period during which the city was under marginal Polish control. This resolves the issue without cluttering up the page with extraneous dummes Zeug.

Space Cadet: Diese Beleidigungen von Ihren sind nicht notwendig! "your precious Königsberg", "Get it?", etc. If you do not explain yourself on the talk page when asked by an Admin to do so, but instead continue to revert, you can be blocked, no matter how good you think your motives are. Jim62sch 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

All Polish cities that were under German control have double names according to Gdansk Vote-why should be German cities under Polish control treated differentely ? Seems a double standard and obvious violation of the rule. Likewise all Polish cities have in ther history mention of German control-yet they are doublenamed. Why should Krolewiec be different ? Molobo

Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793

Votes for Danzig: 46 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)

Votes for Gdansk: 36 votes (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting)

The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 is Danzig, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below.

I think this ends the discussion. Jim62sch 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Take three, will someone actually answer?

Except this isn't about Gdansk, this is on an article about a Prussian poet. Explain to me how it helps an English speaker to see Królewiec instead of Königsberg, and the article isn't even consistent in usage. I'm not trying to "preserve the Polish name" of anything. What the heck are you talking about? And there is no community consensus that I can see, there is a horrendous revert war, and when I ask why. I get vague references, and then finally a paste of a loud obnoxious template, that explains exactly nothing to me. Please try to explain this so it makes some kind of sense to someone who really does not care about Russian vs. Polish vs. German what the darn war is about. That's all I am asking for, and have been asking for, for days now. No one has done it yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gdansk vote extends towards other locations.Nationality of the person is only partially relevant.

--Molobo 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1. In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
2. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.

--Molobo 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Königsberg redirects to Kalingrad. Surely the name Königsberg should be the secondary in this case?

Further, altho it is clear there was a vote on Gdansk, it is not made clear to me by Molobos posts how this is postively relevent to Königsberg/Kalingrad. Explain your reasoning, please.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Königsberg redirects to Kalingrad. Irrelevant. Królewiec was part of Poland so the vote applies to it, especially since it talks about this period. , altho it is clear there was a vote on Gdansk, it is not made clear to me by Molobos posts how this is postively relevent to Königsberg/Kalingrad. The vote is called Gdansk vote but its effects apply to all cities and locations that share history: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland --Molobo 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a person, not a place. If the Gdansk vote applies to Königsberg aka Kalingrad aka Królewiec then take that fight there. Currently I see three pieces of information needed for the place names in this article to make sense to any reader:

1. What was the name of the place when Simon Dach lived there?
2. What is the name of the place now?
3. What is the name of the Wikipedia article on that place?

Currently, I know one of the three for the city in question: the WP article is Kalingrad. Who knows the answers to 1 and 2?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic prejudice DOES NOT trump encyclopaedia quality. Having three names for everything is ridiculous and makes the article less useful and less readable. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not satisfy ultra-nationalists. Guettarda 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to take into account that both Molobo and Space Cadet were once blocked for rioting against the ruling. (WP:POINT?) I suggest referring the issue to User:Chris 73, who (most likely) knows most about the ruling. Sciurinæ 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to comment on the issue about an hour ago. --Ghirla | talk 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the vote (and its language) needs to be reconsidered - it has taken "local" edit-warring and made it Wikipedia-wide. In addition, it claims that reverts related to this vote are not counted as 3rr violations. Local votes cannot nullify policy. Guettarda 15:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion on the talk page to that effect. Further, as you can see at Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Biographies, biographies were specifically to be treated differently. This is being ignored by some editing this page, and those in disagreement are being treated somewhat like vandals, as opposed to fellow editors with a content dispute. This is disruptive and anti-wiki. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. A person who actually reads a policy before engaging in an argument about it. Imagine that! Guettarda 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to take into account that both Molobo and Space Cadet were once blocked for rioting against the ruling. And now I am gladly enforcing this ruling. :This is an article about a person, not place. The naming is applied to articles about people also. Currently I see three pieces of information needed for the place names in this article to make sense to any reader You can always try to change the voting if you don't like it. biographies were specifically to be treated differently

1. In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
2. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.

That is all there is on the vote information. Have a good day. --Molobo 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So...that mean we have to insert "Danzig (Gdansk)" into this article? Anywhere is particular, or just somewhere at random? Guettarda 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So how come this crowd hasn't been edit warring over at Lech Wałęsa? According to that policy, it must have (Danzig) after Gdansk. My, my, what major oversight.

Just sprinkle "Danzig (Gdansk)" in there at random. Jim62sch 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As Gdansk isn't mentioned here only the part about : and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names Is of importance here. Molobo.

Based on that argument, every article about Ireland should have Hibernia in parens, every article about France, Gaul, every article about Switzerland, Helvetia, etc. Jim62sch 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Polish name for Königsberg really is irrelevant. The city is not under Polish control, does not carry a Polish name, and has not carried a Polish name in the past. There maybe a Polish name for the city, but that means nothing. When Moscow is referenced in an article, I doubt that anybody would put in the Polish name for Moscow just because the city was once governed by a Polish king. It's ridiculous, and I for one will oppose any Polish nationalist from extending their claims further than necessary. It's Königsberg/Kaliningrad or vice versa. Next thing you know Polish nationalists will claim Simon Dach actually WAS Polish. You got international recognition for Copernicus as an official Pole, what more do you want???????? Dietwald 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the city DID "carry" a Polish name and was under Polish control during entire life of Simon Dach. I'm not sure I like the results of the Gdańsk Vote very much, myself, but we have to be consistent. If we insert the German name on all Polish cities that share German history we have to do it the other way around, also. Space Cadet 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm off to every article about Ireland and adding Hibernia in parens, to every article about France, Gaul, to every article about Switzerland, Helvetia, etc. Jim62sch 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The places you list don't share Polish German history, so they don't fall under the Gdańsk Vote. Space Cadet 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet - the only thing that matters is encyclopaedia quality. The biography vote only talks about Danzig/Gdansk, and yet (quite rightly) the Lech Wałęsa article, in violation of the vote, says nothing about Danzig. Quit pushing an ultranationistic POV and try to remember that we are here to write an encyclopaedia. Usefulness trumps ultranationalism. Guettarda 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling me names and watch your personal attacks. Lech Wałęsa did not live in the time when the city was controlled by Germany. Note, that I'm not inserting "Królewiec" for anybody who lived outside the time span when the city was Polish. Space Cadet 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote says nothing about time period. Insisting that the page coforms to an nationalistic agenda to the detriment of readability seems to me to be ultranationalistic POV-pushing. It isn't meant as an attack, merely a descriptor of what you are doing. Let me know which part of that phrase you consider an attack and I will refrain from using it as a descriptor of your behaviour. Guettarda 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider calling my edits "ultranationalistic POV" highly offensive. Yes, the vote says plenty about time periods! Read again and get back to me. Space Cadet 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.

I see no mention of time periods in that text (which is the text that people voted on). It is, of course, disruptive and hurts the quality of the encyclopaedia. But if you really were just enforcing the provisions of the vote you would enforce it equally. Instead, in the case of one of the most prominent people associated with the city, the vote is not enforced and you have made no attempt to enforce the vote. Just coincidence? Guettarda 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt. It's a good thing ultranationalism is harmless -- well, except for a couple world wars and hundreds of smaller wars. Jim62sch 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Layout of poem

Formatting poem, as per suggestion by Jim62sch on my talk page:

Lied der Freundschaft

Der Mensch hat nichts so eigen, So wohl steht ihm nichts an, Als daß er Treu erzeigen und Freundschaft halten kann; Wann er mit seinesgleichen Soll treten in ein Band, Verspricht sich nicht zu weichen, Mit Herzen, Mund und Hand.		Was kann die Freude machen, Die Einsamkeit verhehlt? Das gibt ein doppelt Lachen, Was Freunden wird erzählt. Der kann sein Leid vergessen, Der es von Herzen sagt; Der muß sich selbst zerfressen, Der in geheim sich nagt.
Die Red' ist uns gegeben, Damit wir nicht allein Für uns nur sollen leben Und fern von Leuten sein; Wir sollen uns befragen Und sehn auf guten Rat, Das Leid einander klagen, So uns betreten hat.		Gott stehet mir vor allen, Die meine Seele liebt; Dann soll mir auch gefallen, Der mir sehr herzlich gibt; Mit diesen Bundsgesellen Verlach' ich Pein und Not, Geh' auf den Grund der Höllen Und breche durch den Tod.
	Ich hab', ich habe Herzen So treue, wie gebührt, Die Heuchelei und Schmerzen Nie wissentlich berührt; Ich bin auch ihnen wieder Von Grund der Seelen hold, Ich lieb' euch mehr, ihr Brüder, Als aller Erden Gold.	[1]

Each verse is in a cell, and each cell containing text has been coloured. I added the colour to bind the verses together. The other poem can be similarly formatted, for consistency. I tried to arrange the cells as Jim62sch suggested, but am not sure I succeeded. -- Ec5618 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Second version, as per Jim62sch's corrections. I've now coloured the entire background, for that 'o look, it's unbleached paper'-feel. Removing style="background-color: #EEE" gets rid of it though. -- Ec5618 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, EC, it looks perfect! The other poem is a sonnet so it can't be boken up the same way, although it would look good centered and in a box. Jim62sch 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dach mentioned in book

From Gutenberg: Creator Menzel, Wolfgang, 1798-1873

Translator Horrocks, Mrs. George

Title Germany from the Earliest Period Volume 4

Note Translation of: Geschichte der Deutschen

Language English

EText-No. 8401

Release Date 2005-07-01

Copyright Status Not copyrighted in the United States.

Full text here

"...the gentle Simon Dach, whose sorrowing notes bewail the miseries of the age. He founded a society of melancholy poets at Koenigsberg, in Prussia, the members of which composed elegies for each other; Tscherning and Andrew Gryphius, the Corneille of Germany, a native of Glogau, whose dramas are worthy of a better age than the insipid century in which they were produced. The life of this dramatist was full of incident. His father was poisoned; his mother died of a broken heart. He wandered over Germany during the thirty years' war, pursued by fire, sword, and pestilence, to the latter of which the whole of his relations fell victims. He travelled over the whole of Europe, spoke eleven languages, and became a professor at Leyden, where he taught history, geography, mathematics, physics, and anatomy. "

Lock Proposal

Unless the opposite parties will not stop vandalising this page I will ask the admin to lock this article against further vandalism.--Kuban Cossack 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Castro, why don't you unlock your common sense? Space Cadet 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SpaceCadet, NPA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Knock the crap off

See this: Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793

Votes for Danzig: 46 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)

Votes for Gdansk: 36 votes (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting)

And see: Results on VOTE: Biographies

Votes for Agree: 44 votes (excluding 4 votes due to low edit count of the voters). One voter explicitly expressed preference of Gdansk only after 1945. This caveat was opposed explicitly by one voter

Votes for Disagree: 19 votes (excluding 2 votes due to low edit count of the voters)

The proposal is accepted. In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.

Some of us can read. Stop with this nationalistic garbage. Dach was German, thus the German name gets used.

He was German, no problem. But the location ‘’shares a history between Germany and Poland’’, so the Polish name gets used once in the lead. How could he go to school in Kaliningrad? Knock your own crap off and stop throwing insults. Try to be mature about this.
Atabir (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Could you furnish a link to the vote? Personally, I would say Simon Dach went to school to Königsberg, which is now known as Kaliningrad. In my opinion, it is not absolutely necessary to add the modern Polish name 'Kaliningrad', because that name is also in the (linked) article about Königsberg and anyway it's clear to anybody who reads this. But putting the Polish name Królewiec into this article about a German poet, is anachronistic nationalism. To be blunt - it appears to be your only interest in Wikipedia, to add things like this to various articles. Writing kilobytes of original (and neutral) text in Wikipedia would enhance your reputation. Glatisant (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn’t shouting, you did in the title. Here is the link: Go to Elbląg page, hit Talk. Now go to the lowest yellow box and click “Show”. Look at the fifth verse.
Simon Dach lived in a country under Polish suzerainty, which took 200 years. I’m including the Teutonic period. That’s shared history for me. And Poles lived there too, they kept the language till 1945.
You writers are very important, but so are we – the proof readers.
Sincerely Atabir (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't, but now I see the shouting was User:Jim62sch's doing, but he didn't sign his contribution, so it looked as if you were the culprit.

The problem is, you didn't discuss your changes, you just changed the text. Also, on your talk page there are two contributions, i.a. a question by Sijtze Reurich, one of the major contributors of this article, a valued Wikipedia user. However, you didn't answer, you just changed the words and the meaning of his text. Your contributions just consist of adding/replacing some names according to your particular point of view. As a result of your actions, Sijtze Reurich, a prolific and subtle author who has written many well-sourced articles, left Wikipedia. I think you should apologise for your rude behavior and enter a discussion with him (and others). Maybe you could write a few articles, so you could earn some respect as a positive Wikipedia contributor. Glatisant (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long absence, Glatisant. We had an inspection, I worked 24/7.
I think I’ve already explained a lot, but the Danzig vote clarifies things even better.
During the time of life of Simon Dach and Robert Roberthin, Duchy of Prussia was under Polish suzerainty. Polish king could send his chancellor to the capital of the duchy and let him rule from there above the duke, as a legate or envoy.
Now, that deserves a mention of the Polish name in the lead. In parentheses. One mention. Just like the Danzig vote instructs us to do.
> I have a lot of respect for the writers, but they also make mistakes. That’s when we come in. You should gain a lot of respect for proof readers, too. You don’t ‘’’own’’’ the articles you write, they are for everybody’s criticism.
For quietly, peacefully doing my work, I got treated like crap, yelled at, accused of stuff and called names. I was labeled a bad guy, a troublemaker, although I never offended a soul. Sijtze, whom I’m supposed to apologize to, from the start patronized me and looked down upon me. I still sent him a cheerful note, inviting him for return and mutual cooperation. I was polite and treated him like a colleague, he treated me like an intruder
And none of my points were answered. I have to respect you, but you don’t respect me, is that how it works? Happy editing,
sincerely, Atabir (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon Dach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001343/http://pedia.nodeworks.com/S/SI/SIM/Simon_Dach to http://pedia.nodeworks.com/S/SI/SIM/Simon_Dach
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ni.schule.de/~pohl/literatur/sadl/barock/dach.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)